Normal development in <i>Xenopus laevis</i>: A complementary staging table for the skull based on cartilage and bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Xenopus laevis is a widely used model organism in the fields of genetics and development, and more recently evolution. At present, the most widely used staging table for X. laevis is based primarily on external features and does not describe the corresponding skull development in detail. Here, we describe skull development in X. laevis, complete with labeled figures, for each relevant stage in the most widely used staging table. RESULTS: We find skull development in X. laevis is, for the most part, distinct at each of the previously established stages based on external anatomy. However, variation does exist in the timing of onset of ossification of certain bones in the skull, which results in a range of stages where a skull element first ossifies. The overall sequence of ossification is less variable than the timing of ossification onset. CONCLUSIONS: While events in skull development vary somewhat between specimens, and in comparison, to external events, this staging table is useful in showing both when bones first appear and for documenting the range of temporal variance in X. laevis skull development more accurately than previously done. Furthermore, when only skull data are available, the approximate stage of a specimen can now be determined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".